HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 Status of the Marine Resources in Jefferson CountyThe Status of the Marine Resources in Jefferson County
The Marine Resources Committee Early Action Project Findings and Recommendations
A Report to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
By
E. David Thielk
Prepared for the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee
Thursday, December 21, 2000
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary .................................................................................. ..............................4
II. Methods and Sources ................................................................................ ..............................6
TheEarly Action Project ....................................................................... ..............................6
Sources of Information and Data ........................................................... ..............................6
Scientific data from the MRCS ongoing literature search ................... ..............................6
Public input gathered from the MRCS survey and questionnaire ........ ..............................7
Comments from experts and citizens gathered during a series of five public meetings and
other presentations ............................................................................. ..............................7
Experts and Individual MRC members ............................................. ............................... 7
III. Background Information — Essential Marine Ecology ............................. ..............................9
IndicatorSpecies ................................................................................... ..............................9
NearshoreHabitat ................................................................................ .............................10
Marine Protected Areas ........................................................................ .............................11
IV. Findings ............................................................................................... .............................12
DiscoveryBay ...................................................................................... .............................12
TheEnvironment .............................................................................. .............................12
Surf Smelt and Sandlance Habitat ..................................................... .............................12
Discovery Bay Herring Stocks .......................................................... .............................12
Low Dissolved Oxygen/Eutrophication ............................................ .............................13
The Straits of Juan de Fuca ................................................................... .............................13
TheEnvironment .............................................................................. .............................13
KelpBed Losses ............................................................................... .............................13
Status of Bird Populations ................................................................ .............................13
Impacts of Seaweed Harvesting ........................................................ .............................14
PortTownsend Bay .............................................................................. .............................14
TheEnvironment .............................................................................. .............................14
Potential Dioxin Sources .................................................................. .............................15
Dissolved Oxygen and Fecal Coliform ............................................. .............................15
Shellfish Advisory in Port Townsend Bay ........................................ .............................15
Historic Pacific Cod Fishery ............................................................. .............................15
KilisutHarbor ...................................................................................... .............................16
TheEnvironment .............................................................................. .............................16
OakBay ............................................................................................... .............................16
TheEnvironment .............................................................................. .............................16
ErosionDamage ............................................................................... .............................16
GeneralRegional Concerns .................................................................. .............................16
SalmonListings ................................................................................ .............................17
Potential ESA Listings — Rockfish, Bottom Fish and Forage Fish ..... .............................17
SpartinaInfestations ......................................................................... .............................19
MarineMammals ............................................................................. .............................19
V. Restoration Efforts ................................................................................ ............................... 20
SpartinaRemoval ............................................................................. .............................20
ChimacurnCreek Restoration ......................................................... ............................... 20
IndianIsland Superfund Site ............................................................. .............................20
2
VI. Citizen Input and Perceptions ................................................................. .............................21
VII. Data Gaps ............................................................................................. .............................22
Water /Sediment Quality ..................................................................... ............................... 22
Mappingand Habitat Data .................................................................... .............................23
Plant and Animal Surveys .................................................................... .............................23
VIII. Recommendations .............................................................................. .............................24
Marine Protected Areas ...................................................................... ............................... 24
Additional Recommendations .............................................................. .............................24
WaterQuality ................................................................................. ............................... 24
Habitat............................................................................................. .............................25
Fish, Bird, and Mammal Populations ................................................ .............................25
LiteratureCited ............................................................................................ .............................27
3
I. Executive Summary
In the past twenty years numerous telltale signs have suggested that the marine
waters of the Northwest Straits (NWS), and those bordering Jefferson County in
particular, are changing dramatically. The following trends have been documented in
the scientific literature that describes these areas:
1. Forage fish, an essential link in the marine food chains, have declined
precipitously since the early 1970s. The Discovery Bay herring stock, one of the
larger stocks in Jefferson County, has all but disappeared.
2. Hood Canal chum salmon and Puget Sound salmon stocks have recently been
listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Four additional
fish species from the NWS region (Pacific herring, copper rockfish, quillback
rockfish and brown rockfish) are being considered for potential future listings as
endangered as a result of declining populations. All of these species use the
nearshore habitat found in Jefferson County.
3. Critical patches of nearshore habitat (eelgrass beds and kelp beds, for example)
throughout the region have disappeared. Invasive marine plant species, such as
cordgrass, have appeared. In addition, ecologically important saltmarsh and soft -
bank beach habitat has also decreased as shorelines have been developed,
ports have expanded, and bulkheads have been constructed. The construction
of the Boat Haven in Port Townsend Bay is an example of a development project
that resulted in the loss of important eelgrass and saltmarsh habitat.
4. The abundance of marine birds, such as scoters and western grebes has
significantly declined in the area since the 1970s. The marbled murrelet is
currently listed as endangered. In addition, tufted puffins, common murres and.
other marine bird populations have declined. These animals are vulnerable to
many stressors, including disturbance by humans, erosion of banks, and loss of
forage fish. In Jefferson County, resident and over wintering marine birds use
Protection Island as well as protected bays and estuaries.
5. The waters and sediments in the NWS region have been found to contain
increasing quantities of human generated chemicals, including polychlorinated
biphenyls, (PCB's), arsenic, and heavy metals. In some years, the Department
of Ecology has found contaminant levels in Port Townsend Bay water and
sediment samples that may have potentially adverse biological impacts. Some
shellfish beds on Indian Island have been closed due to contamination by metals,
PCBs and other organic compounds.
6. Shellfish beds throughout the Puget Sound and NWS region have been
increasingly subject to closure due to contamination from human related
activities. Historically, 136,000 acres of the region's tidelands have been used
4
for shellfish harvest. Today, about 75% of the original shellfish harvest areas of
Puget Sound and Northwest Straits are approved for commercial or recreational
harvest. While the shellfish beds in Jefferson County are relatively healthy, there
are specific restrictions on Indian Island, beaches near Port Townsend, and
beaches near Port Ludlow. Deteriorating water quality associated with human
activities are the prime causes of most shellfish restrictions.
All ecosystems change over time due to natural causes, including climate and
ocean temperatures. However, the rates of change observed by scientists for the
northern Puget Sound and Northwest Straits region have been so rapid, there is little
doubt that human activities, both directly and indirectly, have profoundly affected the
marine environment. In addition to these obvious changes, there are countless subtle
signals that the integrity of the marine environment is deteriorating. The findings of the
Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee (MRC), detailed in the sections that
follow, document these changes in our local marine waters and make recommendations
to address them.
In the coming year, the Jefferson County MRC will be addressing some of the
findings in this report. Public outreach and education will continue. In addition, the
MRC is hoping to work with the North Olympic Salmon Coalition to compile additional
data on forage fish spawning habitat in the NWS waters of Jefferson County. They are
also planning to look closely at developing a process for establishing MPAs in the area
11. Methods and Sources
The Early Action Project
The scientific data has shown that the Northwest Straits ecosystem has been
under stress for at least 20 years. Prompted by this data, U.S. Senator Patty Murray
and U.S. Congressmen Jack Metcalf convened a citizen's panel to develop strategies
and solutions. Based on the work of this panel, Congress authorized the Northwest
Straits Marine Conservation Initiative in 1998. As a result, seven Washington counties
whose shores are adjacent to the Northwest Straits voluntarily created marine resource
committees to develop citizen -based programs to preserve and protect marine
resources. The Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee (MRC) was established
in 1999.
In February 2000, the Jefferson County MRC submitted a request for the sum of
$25,000 dollars to the Northwest Straits Commission to fund an Early Action Project
(EAP). The EAP focus was to raise awareness and educate citizens and policy makers
about the marine resources of the NWS and to encourage a broad base of support for
the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Jefferson County. The
Jefferson County MRC has used the grant money to:
1. Compile information about the status of Jefferson County's marine resources in
the areas adjacent to the NWS and examine the need for MPAs.
2. Establish procedures for gathering information and data from Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) and other state and federal agencies.
3. Oversee the design, production and distribution of brochures, questionnaires,
maps, charts, visual aids and other materials used to raise awareness and
educate the public.
4. Schedule and facilitate a series of public meetings related to marine resources.
5. Coordinate the writing, editing and production of three reports. Target audiences
for the three reports include the citizens of Jefferson County, the Jefferson
County Board of County Commissioners, and the Northwest Straits Commission.
This report is part of item 5 above and is directed towards the Jefferson County
Board of County Commissioners.
Sources of Information and Data
The information for this report has come from four sources:
Scientific data from the MRCs ongoinq literature search.
A consultant (Nightingale 2000) conducted an extensive literature review and
data search under contract to the MRC. This review began with a listing of sources and
information prepared by Washington Sea Grant for the Northwest Straits Commission
Gi
and Volumes 1 and 2 of The Status of Marine Protected Areas in Puget Sound prepared
by Michael Murray (1998). Additional data were collected from the following sources:
1. NOAA Protected Resources Publications,
2. Puget Sound /Georgia Basin Transboundary Bibliography,
3. A collection of local and regional marine protected area bibliographies.
4. Washington State Department of Ecology water and sediment quality
bibliographies, database, and monitoring results reports,
5. NOAA Seattle Regional Library,
6. NMFS status reviews,
7. Washington Sea Grant Publications,
8. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife forage fish and groundfish fact
sheets and related reports,
9. Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA),
10. UW Fisheries Research Institute Reports,
11.National Technical Information Service (NTIS), and University of Washington
Library databases.
Public input gathered from the MRCs survey and questionnaire.
A Public Input Questionnaire was developed by the MRC to evaluate the public's
perceptions and concerns related to the marine resources of Jefferson County. The
questionnaire was completed by 260 individuals and provided information on local
concerns, attitudes and perspectives, as well as citizen's suggestions for marine
resource protection issues.
Comments from experts and citizens gathered during a series of five public meetings
and other presentations.
Five public meetings were held during the months of August, September and
October 2000. In each of these meetings, scientists and experts presented information
and citizens were invited to ask questions and provide comments. A summary of these
public meetings is provided below in Table 1.
Table 1. Public meetings summary information.
Date
Topic
Number of
Presenters
Number of
Citizens
830/00
MRC Open House
14
approximately 30
9/13/00
Marine Fish
3
1
9/27/00
Shellfish
6
11
10/11/00
Birds and Mammals
3
1 approximately 20
10/25/00
Marine Habitat
4
1 8
Experts and Individual MRC members
During the course of writing this report, questions arose that could not be
answered easily or directly from the sources listed above. These questions were
fd
answered by contacting individual MRC members or experts directly. These include, but
are not limited to:
James West, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Judy D'Amore, Friday Harbor Biological Station
Wayne Palsson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Linda Newberry, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
Bill Kalina, US Navy, Indian Island
Randy Kline, Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Michelle McConnell, Community Education and Public Outreach Consultant
Harriet Beale, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
Bill Yake, Washington Department of Ecology
Gregg Bargmann, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Anne Murphy, Port Townsend Marine Science Center
Eveleen Muehlethaler, Port Townsend Paper Company
Laurie Scinto, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
Helen Berry, Department of Natural Resources
Alan Newman, Department of Ecology
Maggie Dutch, Department of Ecology
III. Background Information — Essential Marine Ecology
Two themes stand out clearly in the literature review conducted by the MRC. One
of these themes is the role that forage fish, salmon and bird populations play as general
indicators of ecosystem health. The other is the value of nearshore habitat to the
overall health of the marine ecosystem. The information in this section will provide
background information for the findings and recommendations detailed in Sections IV
and V below.
Indicator Species
In the Northwest Straits (NWS) system, there are several species or groups of
species whose populations tell us a great deal about the health and vitality of the entire
ecosystem. Sometimes referred to as "indicator species," these organisms are
integrally interconnected to other organisms as well as to the physical components of
the environment. When an ecosystem is undergoing subtle physical, chemical or
biological stress, changes in the populations of indicator species may be an early
warning sign.
Forage fish, which include Pacific herring, Pacific sandlance, surf smelt, juvenile
Pacific hake and juvenile walleye pollock, are essential conduits of food energy in the
NWS environment (see Appendix, Figure 1). These species form a food link between
many small invertebrates and larger fish- eating predators. Marine mammals, bald
eagles, tufted puffins, common murres, marbled murrelets, Pacific cod, lingcod, salmon
and adult rockfish all depend heavily on these five species. Because these few species
of forage fish are so important to so many other marine organisms, they are considered
useful indicator species for the entire marine ecosystem. Of the five species of forage
fish listed above, Pacific herring, Pacific hake and walleye pollock are considered
stressed and in decline in the Northwest Straits. The status of sandlance and surf smelt
populations are not known at this time.
Changes in marine and shore bird populations can also be indicators of
ecosystem changes. Population changes in puffins and rhinoceros auklets, which nest
in burrows, are useful indicators of shoreline erosion or beach compaction. Common
murres are particularly sensitive to disturbances while nesting. Population changes
may indicate excessive human activity nearby. Western grebes rely heavily on forage
fish in their diet and are therefore useful indicators of forage fish population declines.
All three of Northwest Straits bird species have shown dramatic declines in the past 20
years.
The status of Pacific salmon populations is also an indicator of ecosystem health.
Salmon utilize different ecosystems in different stages of their life history, are eaten by
organisms from many different ecosystems, and play an important role in returning
essential nutrients to watersheds. Salmon offer a real -life metaphor for the
interconnectedness of different ecosystems and changes in their population can reflect
changes in open water, nearshore, as well as upland ecosystems. Currently, the Puget
Z
Sound Chinook and the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon,
are listed as threatened under the ESA.
Nearshore Habitat
Just as forage fish are the energy link between hundreds of species in the marine
environment, the nearshore habitat draws many species together through spatial
connections. Nearshore habitat can extend 200 or more horizontal feet upland of the
high water mark and out to depths of greater than 65 feet. It includes saltmarshes,
wetlands, bluffs, beaches, and intertidal areas as well as submerged habitat. The
nearshore habitat is the closest and most vulnerable to human activity. At the same
time, it is one of the most sensitive to stress. In the waters around Jefferson County, the
nearshore habitat varies in both its physical nature as well as its biological nature.
Many factors contribute to the diversity found in the nearshore habitats in the
region. The material that makes up the bottom of a nearshore habitat can be rock,
cobble, coarse gravel, fine gravel, sand, or mud. The shape and location of the nearest
shoreline may provide shelter from wind, currents and waves, or the nearshore habitat
may be more exposed to these elements. Depending upon the kind of substrate, the
degree of exposure, and the depth of the nearshore environment, different kinds of
plants and animals may occupy these habitats.
On rocky substrates near exposed shorelines, rockweed, algae, some kelps,
surfgrass and coralline algae thrive. Eelgrass, on the other hand, is more likely to be
found in semi - protected locations with sand or mud bottoms. Deeper, rocky reef
habitats may support various red algae. In turn, the vegetation that grows under various
physical conditions influence the kinds of invertebrates and vertebrates that use or
settle in the habitat. As a result, a very diverse biological community is supported in the
nearshore area of the NWS.
Many NWS fish species use the nearshore habitat for at least one stage in their
life histories. Sandlances and surf smelt, for example, use beaches throughout
Jefferson County for spawning. The juvenile stages of all of the forage fish, as well as
many predator species, use eelgrass beds as a rearing area. Pacific herring lay their
roe directly in eelgrass beds. In addition, eelgrass beds are teaming with small worms,
clams, and crustaceans that are consumed by juvenile salmon, rockfish and several
species of birds. Kelp beds similarly harbor mussels, barnacles, crabs, limpets and
chitons as well as seaperch, sculpins, rockfish and cod. The abundance of juvenile fish
in these habitats also make them ideal feeding grounds for many species of birds.
In addition to offering food and shelter, the nearshore habitat is the most
productive energy zone in the marine environment. It is in the nearshore habitat, with
its abundance of vegetation, that seaweed, kelps, eelgrass and algae are able to
convert sunlight into biomass. This conversion of solar energy into plant matter is a
major source of food for marine grazers.
10
When marshes are filled for development, mudflats are diked for farming, and
ports, factories, roads and homes are constructed, it is the nearshore environment that
is impacted. When shorelines are dredged, paved, or altered by bulkheads, docks and
piers, critical nearshore habitat is lost. It has been estimated that 58% of the original
coastal wetlands that are so important to marine fish and wildlife in Puget Sound have
been lost to human development. In the Straits of Georgia, the loss is estimated at
greater than 18% on the Washington side. In some areas, such as the urban areas of
Seattle, Tacoma and Vancouver, B.C. the broad expanse of intertidal marsh has been
100% eliminated (British Columbia/Washington Marine Science Panel 1994). In
Jefferson County, we have not yet determined the extent of nearshore habitat impacts,
but we know that some critical habitat has been lost, particularly in areas of dense
population. The habitat still remaining is in need of protection.
Marine Protected Areas
Once an environment is lost, damaged, or contaminated, the costs of restoration
can be immense. A wise path is one that blends managed growth and development,
resource use, and other human activities with long -term safeguards to the marine
resources in the area. One of many tools that can be used to accomplish these
safeguards is the creation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) within the local region. An
MPA is any marine area in which human activity is restricted in order to enhance a
resource.
Research on the value of MPAs have shown that they may offer many benefits to
the community:
1. They can be designed to successfully protect key species in the ecosystem.
2. Established MPAs may be used to extend scientific understanding of the
ecological relationships in a local area.
3. They encourage non - harvest related human activities.
4. They may help restore commercial fisheries catches.
All of the MPAs within a region can be individually designed, based on scientific
data, and at the same time be integrated into a system that enhances the regional
marine ecology. MPAs can be voluntary or regulated.
The use of MPAs requires coordination with both the WDFW and the Tribes, as
well as other MRCs, organizations and government agencies. In addition, a formal
process of local citizen input in setting goals, identifying locations and restrictions help
guarantee their success.
11
IV. Findings
Most of the findings and recommendations below apply directly to the NWS
waters that are adjacent to Jefferson County. However, it is important to remember that
salt water and related plants and animals are not organized around these human
designations. Broader regional activities and impacts, while not directly controllable,
can affect the quality and health of the waters on our own doorstep and are addressed
here as well.
Discovery Bay
The Environment
Discovery Bay is a protected estuary that experiences minimal mixing and
flushing for a body of water its size. Consequently, the deeper waters of the bay can
remain stratified at times. The result is that surface and deeper waters may have
different temperatures, salinity and nutrient levels and certain locations and depths may
be very sensitive to water quality degradation. The nearshore habitat varies and
includes boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and mud. Nearshore vegetation includes
eelgrass beds. In addition, five tidal marshes lie within the tidelands of Discovery Bay.
These marshes offer habitat for birds and create a natural filtering of runoff into the bay.
Discovery Bay also includes approved tribal, commercial and recreational shellfish
harvest tracts (see Appendix, Figure 2)
Surf Smelt and Sandlance Habitat
Surf smelt and sandlance spawning areas are found along the beaches of
Discovery Bay (see Appendix A, Figures 3 and 4). Surf smelt spawn at the highest tide
lines at high slack tide near the water's edge on coarse sand or pea gravel. These
spawning grounds are highly vulnerable and are damaged by altering soft bank habitat,
removing overhanging vegetation along shorelines, construction of bulkheads, and
other incompatible development projects. Sandlance spawning occurs in the upper
intertidal on sand and gravel beach material at high tide. The eggs are coated with
sand grains that may serve to retain moisture. Both sandlance and surf smelt spawning
beaches have been identified throughout Discovery Bay.
Discovery Bay Herring Stocks
The Discovery Bay herring stock is currently at a critical low, having declined
from over 3000 tons in 1980 to a run size of zero in 1998 (Penttila 2000). The cause for
the decline is not understood at this time (see Appendix, Figure 5).
Spawning grounds for this stock of herring occur along both shorelines of the
southern half of Discovery Bay (see Appendix, Figure 6). Just prior to spawning, adult
herring congregate in an area that extends from just south of Protection Island in the
Strait of Juan de Fuca to the middle of Discovery Bay.
12
Low Dissolved Oxygen /Eutrophication
In 1997, Discovery Bay was one of five Puget Sound sites (determined by the
Washington Department of Ecology) to have seasonal low dissolved oxygen (D.O.)
levels (below 3 mg /1) and high nutrient concentrations (PSWQAT 2000). These
conditions may indicate that a process known as eutrophication is occurring in
Discovery Bay. Eutrophication exacerbates the already low D.O. levels, resulting in
greatly reduced biodiversity. In contrast, stations outside of the bay do not show these
indicators (see Appendix, Figure 7).
The Straits of Juan de Fuca
The Environment
The Straits of Juan de Fuca, including the waters around Protection Island and
Smith Island are relatively exposed. Substrates along North Beach vary, but are
primarily composed of cobbles, gravels and sand. The deeper waters along North
Beach and Protection Island provide rocky reef habitat for rockfish, lingcod and other
bottom fish.
Protection Island is marked by a combination of steep cliffs as well as soft bank
shorelines. A combination of temperate weather, protected habitat, isolation from
human disturbances, soft soils for burrowing, and an abundance of prey in nearby
waters make the island an ideal nesting area for various bird species. Seventy -two per
cent of the region's breeding seabirds nest on Protection Island (Ryan 2000).
Kelp Bed Losses
Ten years ago rich kelp beds existed on Dallas Bank on the northwest side of
Protection Island. These kelp beds began gradually disappearing in 1990 and
completely disappeared by 1996. The cause for this significant loss of kelp habitat is not
known at this time (see Appendix, Figure 8). Today, an eelgrass bed is now located on
the northwest side of Protection Island (Bookheim 2000).
Status of Bird Populations
Biologists consider bird populations to be a regional concern in the Northwest
Straits. They are addressed in this section because of the importance of Protection
Island as a nesting site and habitat for so many birds. In addition to Protection Island,
Mystery Bay, Kilisut Harbor, Oak Bay and other protected estuarine waters offer habitat
for shore and overwintering birds.
For the past 20 years, surf scoter populations in all regions of Puget Sound have
been in decline (Nysewander 2000). At this time, the cause for these declines is not
known. Surf scoters rely on the areas of the Straits and Protection Island for breeding,
overwintering and feeding.
13
Western grebe populations have declined even more than the scoter populations
the last 20 years. The causes for declines are not known, however, grebes rely heavily
on forage fish in their diet.
The common murre of the Northwest Strait is also experiencing depressed
populations, showing declines from 1979 to 1993 along Washington coasts. The cause
for their decline has not been identified. Murres depend on healthy populations of
sandlance, herring, and smelt and some bottomfish for food. They use the steeper cliffs
around Protection Island for nesting and are particularly sensitive to human disturbance
during the breeding season (Angell and Balcomb 1982). The causes for their decline
are not known, although gill net entanglement may be responsible for some murre
mortality.
Tufted puffins breeding populations have declined both regionally and within
Jefferson County waters over the past 30 years with no identifiable cause for this
decline. The population on Protection Island has declined from 30 pairs identified in the
mid -70s, to 20 pairs in 1987, and to less than 20 in 1990. The puffin is highly
susceptible to human disturbance while breeding. Development pressure on Protection
Island at one time caused continued erosion of nesting grounds for the thousands of
birds nesting there. In addition, sightseers can cause puffins to take flight, exposing
their eggs and chicks to predators (Angell and Balcomb 1982). Oil spills, both locally
and off the coast, may be responsible for some of the decline in puffin populations.
Puffins also depend heavily on forage fish, such as herring and sandlance, as food
resources.
Protection Island also offers nesting and forage habitat for a significant
population of pigeon guillemots (Ryan 2000). Like many other marine bird populations,
pigeon guillemots have declined by 36% over the last 20 years (Nysewander 2000).
Some of this decline may be caused by entanglement in gill nets.
Impacts of Seaweed Harvesting
Alaria is a nearshore kelp species that provides refuge and prey resources for
several species of fish, including salmonids, rockfish, gunnels, greenling and lingcod.
Between 1996 and 1998, 200 -300 seaweed harvesters removed between 2,000 and
4,000 pounds of the seaweed Alaria from the North Beach County Park area. During
this time, the percent of the region covered with Alaria dropped from 50% to about 15%
(Norris et al. 1999). This finding suggests that intense harvesting of Alaria can have a
large impact on this type of nearshore habitat.
Port Townsend Bay
The Environment
Port Townsend Bay can be described as a relatively shallow estuary composed
of well mixed water. Substrates include cobble, gravel, sand and mud. The wave
energy varies and exposed beaches can receive moderate and long fetch wind waves
14
and currents. Eelgrass beds are found throughout the bay (Norris 1995, 1997, 1998).
There are three saltmarsh areas in the bay, including the Chimacum Creek and the Kala
Point saltmarsh. Together, they total about 45 acres. Surf smelt, sandlance and Pacific
herring spawning habitats are found in Port Townsend Bay (see Appendix, Figures 3, 4,
and 6).
Potential Dioxin Sources
Dioxins can be generated and discharged to the environment when organic
material is burned in the presence of chloride. Sources of dioxin include the burning of
charcoal briquettes, coal, oil and wood.
Some paper mills, such as The Port Townsend Paper Company (PTPC), fire
their industrial boilers using wood wastes, also called hog -fuel. The potential for dioxin
production in these kinds of facilities is greater if the wood waste has soaked in salt
water (Yakes 1998). At one time, the PTPC used salt -laden wood waste, however, they
have used upland sources of wood waste since the early 1980s.
Dioxin produced by the combustion of organic material resides in the ash. The
PTPC disposes of their ash in a private landfill located near the mill. At this time, there
are no dioxin data available for the PTPC facility landfill or for Port Townsend Bay.
Dissolved Oxygen and Fecal Coliform
Low D.O. and unusually high temperatures near Indian Point, between the ferry
terminal and the Port of Port Townsend Boat Haven, have been observed. In addition,
high fecal coliform counts measured at the Point Hudson Marina and the Port of Port
Townsend Boat Haven have also been observed (Norris 1997, PTMSC 2000). High
fecal coliform counts may be due to marina - related activities.
Shellfish Advisory in Port Townsend Bay
The Department of Health (DOH) has issued a consumption advisory for shellfish
harvested from Indian Island. The contaminants identified in the study were pesticides,
PCBs and metals (PSWQAT 2000). The DOH also requires that marina sites such as
Point Hudson and the Port of Port Townsend's Boat Haven are always closed to
shellfishing due to the nature of activities near these sites (WDOH 2000). Approved
beaches for the commercial harvest of shellfish are limited to an area near lower Port
Hadlock (see Appendix A, Figure 2).
Historic Pacific Cod Fishery
Since the 1920s, a commercial trawl fishery for Pacific Cod has existed in this
area. Later, a set net fishery was started. In 1977, a study showed that Pacific cod
were abundant in Port Townsend Bay, particularly during December to March, the
spawning period. By 1991, Pacific cod in Port Townsend Bay disappeared. Despite
prohibitions imposed on cod fishing in Port Townsend Bay, the populations have not
returned. The reason for this population decline is not known (Palsson 2000).
15
Kilisut Harbor
The Environment
Kilisut Harbor is a sheltered estuarine environment located between
Marrowstone and Indian Islands. Approximately ten acres of salt marsh have been
mapped in this area. Kilisut Harbor provides spawning habitat for surf smelt and
sandlance (see Appendix A, Figure 3, and 4). The northern portion of the harbor is a
nursery area for Pacific cod. The sheltered and productive nearshore habitat found in
the Kilisut Harbor provides a haven for the largest population of overwintering birds
found in the NWS waters of Jefferson County. In addition, Kilisut Harbor has approved
commercial shellfish beach tracts.
Kilisut Harbor is also the home of a small stock of Pacific herring. This stock
spawns just inside the mouth of Kilisut Harbor as well as at the mouth of Chimacum
Creek north to the Glen Cove area (see Appendix A, Figure 6). Port Townsend Bay is a
holding area for pre- spawning adults. There are not enough data at this time to
determine long term population trends for this stock of herring (Lemberg et al 1997).
Oak Bay
The Environment
Oak Bay offers a protected estuarine and marsh environment that supports a
large invertebrate community. The northern end of Oak Bay and the southern end of
Marrowstone Island are approved for commercial shellfish harvest. Sandlance
spawning beaches have been identified in Oak Bay (Penttila 2000). Over 20 acres of
marshes have been mapped in the bay. The Bay and nearshore area provide habitat
for many species of marine and shorebirds.
Erosion Damage
The marsh (owned by Jefferson County) on the northwest shore of Oak Bay has
experienced damage due to currents and wave action caused by the dredged channel
between Indian Island and the Quimper Peninsula. Wave action also deposits large
woody debris upon the shore altering the marsh ecosystem there (Shaffer 2000).
General Regional Concerns
Some of the most alarming trends found in this investigation are evident
throughout the Puget Sound region. Although data is not available specifically for the
waters of Jefferson County, it is likely that these regional trends are occurring here as
well.
I[7
Salmon Listings
Sixteen rivers, streams and creeks are used by seven different anadromous fish
species in Jefferson County. This information is summarized in Table 2. Hood Canal
and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon and Puget Sound Chinook are two
salmon stocks that are found in the waters of Jefferson County that have been listed
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Of all the salmon, these species spend the greatest amount of time in the
estuarine marine environment. The life stage that a juvenile salmon spends in the
estuary is one of critical growth and high mortality. Feeding on copepods and other
small invertebrates, these fish are particularly sensitive to losses in nearshore eelgrass
habitat.
Potential ESA Listings — Rockfish, Bottom Fish and Forage Fish
Northern Puget Sound rockfish declines in the last twenty years have been
dramatic (see Appendix A, Figure 9). Three species of rockfish (brown, copper, and
quillback) are currently being considered for listing under the ESA. These fish have
extremely small home ranges (50m2 ), and are very vulnerable to fishing pressure at
specific locations. In addition, these fish mature late in life and have long life spans
17
Tnhle 2_ Factern .leffercnn Caiinty Salmon Ponulations
Stream
Chinook
Summer
Chum
Fall Chum
Coho
Pinks
Steelhea
d�
Cutthroat
Big Quil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Little Quil
X
Greenlin s
unkown
Lin cod
depressed
Scul ins
unknown
Chimacum
above average
X
X
X
above average
X
X
Contractor's
above average
Surf perches
unknown
X
above average
X
Dosewalli s
X
X
X
X
X
X
Duckabush
X
X
X
X
X
X
Eagle Creek
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
Jackson
X
X
Ludlow
X
X
X
Salmon
X
X
X
X
Shine
X
Snow
X
X
X
X
Spencer
X
X
Tarboo
X
X
X
X
Thornd ke
X
X
X
Wolcott
X
X
sources: wui- & ww i i i vvz; varameinx zuuu; uorrea zuuu)
Table 3. The Status of Important Puget Sound
Bottomfish /Groundfish in North Puget Sound
Species
Status lw-
Spiny dogfish
depressed
Skates
above average
Spotted raffish
unknown
Pacific cod
depressed
Walleye pollock
critical
Pacific whiting (hake)
depressed
Rockfishes
depressed
Sablefish (black cod )
above average
Greenlin s
unkown
Lin cod
depressed
Scul ins
unknown
Pacific halibut
above average
Rock sole
depressed
Dover sole
above average
English sole
above average
Sand sole
above average
Surf perches
unknown
Starry flounder
above average
Source: zuuu vuget souno upame. ravvuA i .
18
(30- 90 years). Once populations are depleted, these factors make their recovery a
long -term effort.
In addition to the three species of rockfish mentioned, Pacific herring are also
being considered for listing under the ESA. All of these species use the NWS waters
adjacent to Jefferson County for spawning, rearing or as adults. Eelgrass is considered
essential habitat for juveniles of each of these species. It is also used by spawning
adult herring. Factors affecting these populations include over harvest and loss of or
damage to near shore nursery habitats ( eelgrass and kelp beds). Competition with
delayed release hatchery salmon and predation by marine mammals may also play a
role (West 1997).
Table 3 summarizes the status of these and other species of marine fish found in
the NWS waters of Jefferson County.
Spartina Infestations
Several species of Spartina, also known as cordgrass, have invaded the
saltmarshes of Jefferson County. Spartina is a nonnative noxious weed that disrupts
native saltwater ecosystems, alters habitats for fish, shellfish and birds, and may
aggravate flood conditions. At Kala Point, a colony of Spartina is estimated to be
45,000 square feet, with many smaller clones in a nearby lagoon. Another Spartina
infestation is located on both the east and west sides of Oak Bay. In 1997, the total area
of Spartina sp. in Oak Bay was one half acre. In 1996, volunteers discovered a
Spartina sp. infestation located in the south end of Kilisut Harbor. The infestation size
was estimated at 0.02 acres prior to the 1999 removal. An infestation of Spartina sp.
was discovered in 1996 at Mats Mats, also at about 0.02 acres. Other sites of Spartina
sp. infestation in Jefferson County include Whalen Point, Fort Flagler, north, east and
south Indian Island and Discovery Bay.
Marine Mammals
A total of 29 marine mammal species inhabit the waters of the Northwest Straits.
Ten common species are listed in Table 4. All of the marine mammals found in the
region feed on at least one species of forage fish as well as groundfish, other marine
mammals and salmonids.
Table 4. Marine Mammals Common to the Area
Common ame
:Scientific Name
Killer Whale or orca
Orcinus orca
Dall's Porpoise
Phocoenoides dalli
Harbor Porpose
Phocoena phocoena
Minke Whale
Balenoplera acu /orostrata
Gray Whale
Esrichtius robustus
River Otter
Lutra canadensis
Harbor Seal
Phoca vitulina
No hem Elephant Seal
Mirounga angustirostris
California sea Lion
Zalo hus californiamus
Northern or Steller Sea Lion
Eumetopias jubatus
19
Declines in some populations of Puget Sound orcas correlate with high levels of
PCB's in tissue samples (Ross et al 1999). Because contaminants make take years to
make their way to the top of the food chain, scientists may be seeing just the beginning
of a long -term negative trend for marine mammals throughout the region.
V. Restoration Efforts
Spartina Removal
Numerous Spartina sp. sites (see above) are currently being monitored. At most
of the identified Spartina sites in Jefferson County, the Washington State Department of
Agriculture has worked with Adopt -a- Stream and other local volunteers to monitor and
manually remove Spartina. Because of re- infestation, restoration efforts will need to be
ongoing.
Chimacum Creek Restoration
Chimacum Creek is an important salmon migratory corridor for many species
including the threatened Hood Canal summer chum. Coho, steelhead, cutthroat,
summer chum and fall chum spawn in Chimacum Creek and sandlance spawn on the
beaches immediately adjacent to the creek mouth. Herring spawn north of the creek
and surf smelt spawn further south of the creek mouth.
A coalition of local groups (Wild Olympic Salmon, North Olympic Salmon
Coalition, Jefferson County Conservation District, Washington State University,
Jefferson Land Trust, Trout Unlimited, and the Tribes) have been working together for
two years to protect and restore the marsh and estuarine shorelines of the creek mouth
and the adjacent shorelines. Efforts to remove riprap and fill at the mouth of Chimacum
Creek are presently underway by WDFW and the North Olympic Salmon Coalition.
Approximately 35 acres of estuarine shoreline and marsh habitat have recently been
acquired by WDFW for protection.
Indian Island Superfund Site
A variety of hazardous materials have been handled, stored, and disposed of on
Indian Island since the Navy purchased the Island in 1939. Sixteen sites with potential
contamination have been identified. In 1994, Indian Island was placed on the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency's National Priorities List for cleanup. It was
determined at that time that a landfill on the north end of the island posed potential
health risks at that time.
Contaminants from this site have entered the marine environment via erosion,
surface water runoff, and groundwater discharge. Shellfish samples taken from the
beach near this site and along the northwestern shore of Marrowstone Island have
proven to be contaminated with metals, ordnance compounds, pesticides and semi -
volatile organic compounds (SVOC's). Soils near the site contain metals, PCB's, and
20
SVOC's. Groundwater samples show contamination with metals, pesticides and
SVOC's.
Shellfish harvesting from beaches adjacent to the site has been banned since
1988. The ban will remain in place until future sampling shows concentrations of
contaminants that do not pose health risks. A landfill cap was constructed to contain
contaminants in 1997 followed by measures to reduce bank erosion. Because of
ground water contamination, drinking water wells may never be installed in this area
(U.S. Department of Public Health and Human Services 1998).
The Indian Island contamination site and the Chimacum Creek restoration serve
as examples of the long -term impact and costs to society when human activities destroy
or contaminate the environment.
VI. Citizen Input and Perceptions
Data collected from the various public meetings organized by the MRC suggest
that the public has both recreational and economic interests in the marine resources
Table 5. A summary of public Perceptions of local marine resources.
Fish and Shellfish
Do these need help?
Yes %
No
%
Not
Sure
Your First
Priority?
Bait fish (herring, smelt, sandlance)
46
5
34
7
Cod fish true cod, tom cod, pollock, hake
61
4
23
4
Bottom fish (rockfish, ling cod, flat fish)
64
4
20
11
Migratory fish salmon, sturgeon)
80
1
12
27
Shellfish (clams, crabs, abalone, oysters)
69
6
16
8
Marine Invertebrates seastars, octopus)
47
8
28
3
Birds and Mammals
Yes %
No
Not
Your First
Do these need help?
63
%
Sure
Priority?
Mudflats
53
8
20
53
Seabirds
61
5
23
11
Marine Mammals
70
7
15
24
Habitat
Do these need help?
Yes %
No
%
Not
Sure
Your First
Priority?
Salt marshes
63
4
18
9
Mudflats
53
8
20
53
Eel grass meadows
65
4
16
17
Kelp beds
62
6
16
6
Sandy beaches
51
7
23
4
Gravel /cobble beaches
46
10
27
0
Rocky reefs
48
6
26
3
21
of Jefferson County. The Public Input Questionnaire was completed by 226 individuals.
The majority of respondents felt that in general, most of the marine resources needed
some help at this point in time. Part of the survey data is summarized in Table 5.
A majority of respondents also felt that harvest management of marine resources
could be improved. A majority of citizens also believe that oil spill management and
exotic species management could be improved. Similarly, a majority of citizens believe
that the rules for shoreline and upland development and water quality management
could be improved upon.
Participants were asked to describe where they have seen changes in harvest
size, frequency and quality. Individuals mentioned abalone, salmon, bottom fish, clams,
crabs, cuthroat, and sea birds as resources perceived to be in decline in the waters of
Jefferson County.
The questionnaire also encouraged respondents to comment on solutions that
they would support. These included a diverse range of ideas from a total moratorium on
the harvest of certain species to regulating specific user groups, such as commercial or
tribal harvesters as well as better enforcement of existing regulations. A number of
individuals supported increasing the levels and amount of research on different
resources. Several individuals called for more controlled growth management, stricter
development codes and more public education on marine resources. The general
response to the questionnaire suggests that many citizens are ready for education and
action related to marine resource conservation, including the establishment of marine
protection areas.
VII. Data Gaps
Due to rising interest in marine resources in the past several decades, this report
was based on a tremendous amount of literature and expertise. However, a close
scrutiny of this material also demonstrated that there are serious gaps in the knowledge
of the NWS marine resources. The following data gaps were recognized at this time.
As knowledge and understanding increases, some gaps will close and others will open.
Water /Sediment Quality
1. Additional monitoring for contaminants by the Department of Ecology (DOE),
including three sampling stations between Cattle Point and Protection Island, will
provide valuable information about the Straits relative to Discovery Bay, Port
Townsend Bay, and Kilisut Harbor.
2. Additional monitoring of D.O., temperature, and fecal coliform at Indian Point and
Point Hudson will provide useful information about marina - related stressors in
these two areas.
3. Several additional years of sediment monitoring by the DOE will help identify
trends in sediment chemistry in the waters around Indian Island and other areas.
WJ
4. More information is needed to determine if chemical contamination is occurring in
Port Townsend Bay.
Mapping and Habitat Data
5. Additional oceanographic data, particularly current data, is important to
understand the ultimate fate of discharges to the marine environment that may
contain harmful substances.
6. Comprehensive identification and mapping of critical nearshore habitats is
needed, particularly for the areas from Kala Point north through Admiralty Inlet,
and west to include Discovery Bay. Because the nearshore habitat is dynamic,
mapping it must be a continuing process that occurs on a minimum cycle of five
years. Changes or losses of habitat need to be correlated with changing forage
fish populations as well as with fish and bird populations.
Plant and Animal Surveys
7. Field surveys for forage fish distribution and abundance are needed to identify
changes in the populations of these important indicator species. This data needs
to be correlated with habitat changes as well as with changes in predator
species, including birds and fish.
8. Surveys of reef and kelp beds to identify the home range habitat of rockfish are
needed to help to establish protected zones for these non - migrating species.
9. Additional data are needed to determine the extent and rate of invasion of exotic
species to the waters of Jefferson County.
10. Monitoring of bird populations need to be continued. These data need to be
correlated with changes in nearshore habitat and forage fish populations.
23
VIII. Recommendations
By joining the NWS Conservation Initiative, The Jefferson County MRC has
agreed to work towards the following benchmarks:
❖ Achieve broad county participation in the MRC.
❖ Achieve a scientifically- based, regional system of MPAs.
❖ Increase the net area of highly productive marine habitats in the NWS area.
❖ Reduce contaminated shellfish beach closures.
•S Support bottom fish recovery in the NWS waters.
❖ Increase the stocks of indicator species in the NWS waters.
The seven MRCs established under the NWS Initiative are considered "bottom
up" organizations that rely heavily on citizen input and local action. Because some of
the findings are regional, the Jefferson County MRC is working with the MRCs of six
other counties who share the waters of the Northwest Straits as well as the Puget
Sound Water Quality Action Team, local governments, various state agencies and the
Tribes. The MRC recognizes that implementation of the following recommendations will
require coordination and communication between the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioner's and these various groups.
Marine Protected Areas
The establishment of marine protected areas in Jefferson County marine waters
provides one way to work towards the benchmarks listed above. In the next year, the
MRC will be working as a team to establish a process for defining and recommending
criteria for MPAs in the NWS waters of Jefferson County. This process will be based on
the findings in this report, as well as additional scientific data that becomes available.
In the process of establishing MPAs, citizen input will be obtained. In addition,
the Jefferson County MRC will be working closely with the WDFW and the Tribes as
they develop a variety of measures to protect marine resources.
We recommend that the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
support the process initiated by the MRC as they develop recommendations and
guidelines for establishing MPAs in the waters of Jefferson County.
Additional Recommendations
In addition, the MRC makes the following recommendations:
Water Quality
1. Develop communication between Jefferson County, the Port Townsend Paper
Company and the Department of Ecology to determine the adequacy of effluent
monitoring and permit compliance.
24
2. Develop communication with the Department of Ecology and Port Townsend
Paper Company to assess potential risks of dioxin contamination in Port
Townsend Bay.
3. Develop communication between Jefferson County and the Port of Port
Townsend to collect and interpret water quality data from Indian Point and the
Point Hudson areas.
4. Develop communication between Jefferson County, the DOE and the Indian
Island Naval facility to monitor the continuing results of the Indian Island
Superfund Site.
5. Work with agencies in the County to identify sources of non -point pollution.
Habitat
6. Support current habitat restoration efforts described here and elsewhere that are
needed to address population declines.
7. Integrate data describing important nearshore habitats with the Shoreline
Management Plan and the Critical Areas Ordinance.
8. Conduct outreach education for the public and their role in fighting Spartina
infestations.
9. Reduce or eliminate additional bulkhead construction in critical locations, support
construction codes that reduce shoreline erosion, and continue to implement
shoreline management decisions that work to. preserve bank integrity. Priority
should be given to soft approaches to erosion control.
10. Adopt measures to encourage shoreline owners to preserve and /or replant
overhanging vegetation along their shores.
11. Coordinate education for beach users on potential human impacts from beach
activities.
12. Work with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to monitor and
educate seaweed harvesters.
Fish, Bird, and Mammal Populations
13. Support the tribes and WDFW as they work to develop a forage fish
management plan.
14. Support continued research on habitat use by rockfish to enable better
management of these populations.
15. Support research on spawning habitat for surf smelt and sandlance. As habitat is
defined, support necessary protective measures for this habitat.
16. Support research to identify standing rockfish populations and correlate these
populations with specific habitat.
17. Support ongoing efforts to monitor critical bird populations.
25
18. Support public education regarding the marine mammal stranding network and
appropriate action towards young marine mammals on the beach.
26
Literature Cited
The author of this report relied extensively on the work of Barb Nightingale's
literature review prepared for the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee. The
following references were cited throughout the text. The citations were provided so that
the reader would have access to additional, more detailed information. With only a few
exceptions, the original sources were not reviewed by this author. All of the written
reports and articles cited below, in addition to other related publications, are available
from the MRC library. The MRC library is located at the WSU Cooperative Extension
Office.
1.Angell, T. and K. C. Balcomb III. 1982. Marine birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. ,
Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
2.Bookheim, B. 2000. WDNR. personal communication with Barb Nightingale.
3.British Columbia/Washington Marine Science Panel. 1994. Shared waters: The vulnerable
inland sea of British Columbia and Washington. Washington Sea Grant Publication.
4.Correa, Ginna 2000. WDFW. personal communication with Barb Nightingale.
5.Determan, Tim. 2000. 1999 Status and trends in fecal coliform pollution in Puget Sound
embayments, Review Draft.
6.Lemberg, Norm A. M. F. O'Toole D. E. Penttila and K. C. Stick. 1997. 1996 Forage Fish
Stock Status Report. WDFW, Olympia, WA.
7.Llanso, Robert J. S. Aasen and K. Welch. 1998. Marine Sediment Monitoring Program I.
Chemisty and Toxicity Testing 19899 -1995, No. 98 -323. Washington State
Department of Ecology.
8.Manuwal, D. A. 1979. Marine bird populations in Washington State. National Wildlife
Federation, Washington D.C.
9.Norris, J. G. 1995. Union Wharf Eelgrass Survey, Port Townsend, Washington, October 7,
1995, For City of Port Townsend. Marine Resources Consultants, Port Townsend,
WA.
10. Norris, J. G. and T. Hutley. 1997. "Habitat utilization/water quality study Port Townsend
Bay, Washington." Prepared for Port Townsend Marine Science Center. Port
Townsend.
11. Norris, J. 1998. Monitoring Basal Area Coverage of Eelgrass in Port Townsend Bay, Port
Townsend, WA.
12. Norris, J. G., D. Llewellin, A. Murphy and D. Nolan. 1999. Recreational seaweed
27
harvesting near Forrt Worden State Park 1996 -1998, Port Townsend, WA.
13. Nysewander, David 2000.USFWS. personal communication with Barbara Nightingale.
14. Palsson, W. A.. 2000. WDFW. personal communication with Barb Nightingale.
15. Parametrix, Inc. 2000. Stage I Technical Assessment, Water Resource Inventory Area 17.
Draft.
16. Penttila, D. 2000. WDFW. personal communication with Barb Nightingale.
17. Port Townsend Marine Science Center. 2000. Report of Annual Water Quality Marine
Survey Data, Port Townsend Leader.
18. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. 2000. "2000 Puget Sound Update: Seventh
Report of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program." Puget Sound Water
Quality Action Team, Olympia, WA.
19. Ross, P., G. Ellis, L, Barrett - Lennard, H. Jurk, D. Sheel and E. Saulitis. 1999. High PCB
concentrations in free - ranging Pacific killler whales (Orcinus orca): effects of age,
sex, and dietary preference. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40, no. 6: 504 -15.
20. Ryan, K. 2000. USFWS. personal communication with Barb Nightingale.
21. Shaffer, J. A. 2000. WDFW. personal communication with Barb Nightingale.
22. U.S. Department of Public Health and Human Services. 1998. U.S. Navy Port Hadlock.
Cerclis No. WA4170090001.
23. Washington State Department of Health. 2000. "Office of Food Safety and Shellfish
Programs 1999 Annual Inventory: Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Areas of
Puget Sound." Olympia, WA.
24. WDF, WDW Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington State
Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory, Olympia, WA.
25. West, James E. 1997. Protection and Restoration of Marine Life in the Inland Waters of
Washington State, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, Olympia, WA.
26. Yakes, B. 1998. Washington State dioxin source assessment. Department of Ecology
Publication No. 98 -320.
28
Appendix
Figure 1. A simplified food web of fish - eating species from the N wN region. Note tnat most Ul
the animals consume additional prey items other than forage fish. However, forage fish makes
up a significant part of the diet of each species. A ( -) indicates species abundance is in decline.
A ( +) indicates species abundance is average or increasing.
(From James West, WDFW.)
r f Annul In Cory oZ
Commenalal and Recrieatlor�al
art Shettfish Area se Of iefrqrson CCbb..-�ty
�' Towirtil6end,,'µ i
I �I$GOVeiy
l Bey
as ,
u.
Comms>rclal Shellfish
Beach GiaeaificaHona
F
19 M Approved
wt M Conditlartal
M Prohibited
y RE3ueetlorw She•!hh
I � Beech Classtficatlona
Willow 3" a UndawlW
u
A C hr Open
ondltlonal
_ - - - - a,z 'a� ® Closed
101
,,z KptyLUnits
Recreational Sh01115h � pallob
Beach List
--,Bay ,! �'Rhom and Streams
�
M. IUiIK Beach MY Pk ...F r
22D. O R -208
2zz. Parr Wa '*
223. �FBATSwnadftl8EelsPk ,� "r. '�` � ,�PUbIPCBeechee
226. ForlFle8kr5fetePk
2.. '44 s1a1. F1c' (Quito" ! zfi ( 3 sewer Outiail Sites
231. Oak Bay sly Plk Bay Y ® Boat launches
132. Sodh Indian Island City Pk
2333. Pt Sqp Card East... i
234 Pt Hamlin �r
Scae 1X.000
236: W � Sid. Pk
239:
is r
(1OMDY %)
312 can shad
313 W. P- Me aty "Pk
314. U R-59
577. DN4b7B
3n1. Tmwdw Parlraft Stals Pk N 4. - _ v j
572. W OM*mne 's
324. OE Deb a,a , 5 Yl 't
325, Peri GUIR a2 �� �✓
326. Pt.Wtibrey
W. Pt WHbwy tapogn
33D. DtR-w
331. OPrrraMps State .FIC �:!' yexRryL^r "'.""1-4
$32. Seel Rock USF8 I to f /jj/
333. Pleasant hFl Herber 6�te Pk r . % .Health
938. Dsdmb>eh Flats
957. Qua Say Tidelands ;,: .' %
�2. E Osbob t o+an aura
2 D 2 4 Niles TaoTwamneim snoMktiOr
- -- .4
Figure 2. Commercial Shellfish Beach Classification.
From Washington Department of Health
Figure 3. Surf smelt spawning beaches in the
Puget Sound region.
(Source: WDFW 2000)
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1984
Figure 4. Sandlance spawning beaches in the
Puget Sound region.
(Source: WDFW 2000)
Spawning biomass of the Discovery Bay Pacific herring stock
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Year
Figure 5. The Discovery Bay Pacific herring population estimates.
Figure 6. Herring spawning areas in the Puget Sound Region.
(Source: From "FW, 2000)
Figure 7. Puget Sound dissolved oxygen measurements (D.O.) for the 96 -97 sampling period.
(Black indicates < 3.0 mg/l; Gray indicates between 3.0 and 5.0 mg/l; White indicates > 5.0 mg/1)
(Source: WDOE Water Quality Monitoring Program; cited in PSWQAT 2000)
Figure 8. Changes in nearshore vegetation arouna vrotection island. The black area
represents Protection Island. Blue area indicates kelp beds. Purple indicates eelgrass
beds.
(Source: Mumford, Tom, DNR, Nearshore Habitat Program)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1975
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Figure 9. Changing rockfish populations in northern Puget Sound waters.
(Source: Wayne Palsson, WDFW)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1977
1982 1987 1992 1997 2002
Year
Figure 10. The changing Pacific Cod populations of northern Puget Sound.
(Source: Wayne Palsson, WDFW)
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1975
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Figure 11. The changing lingcod populations of northern Puget Sound.
(Source: Wayne Palsson, WDFW)